Which is his loss, because it's a great book. I really enjoyed Heinlein's exploration of what is needed to sustain a healthy democratic form of government.
That sentence just says why we're making a national government (i.e. giving up some of our rights). It does not create some unlimited requirement for governments (especially state) to do whatever they can to promote general welfare, whatever that means. It doesn't even grant unlimited authority to do so. Or really say anything at all except state a very general purpose for why a national government is a sensible thing to have.
> We the People... in order to... [do establish] this Constitution
I disagree. The Preamble explicitly states that the Constitution is for these six things. "in Order to" makes it clear what the ends of the document are, and what they’re meant to serve.
That it doesn’t confer unlimited power is orthodox constitutional law. But the Preamble explicitly states the constitutional purposes that should guide the interpretation and exercise of the powers enumerated. And it doesn’t follow that the purposes it states are legally meaningless. The’re part of the constitutional text and inform how the powers actually conferred by the Constitution are construed. As Story commented:
“One of the best established rules of interpretation, one, which common sense and reason forbid us to overlook, is, that when the object of a power is clearly defined by its terms, or avowed in the context, it ought to be construed, so as to obtain the object, and not to defeat it. The circumstance, that so construed the power may be abused, is no answer. All powers may be abused; but are they then to be abridged by those, who are to administer them, or denied to have any operation? If the people frame a constitution, the rulers are to obey it. Neither rulers, nor any other functionaries, much less any private persons, have a right to cripple it, because it is according to their own views inconvenient, or dangerous, unwise or impolitic, of narrow limits, or of wide influence.”
> The Preamble explicitly states that the Constitution is for these six things.
The Constitution establishes the Federal government. Not state, county, city, municipal governments. It says what the Federal government is for. Not what those other levels of government are for. The Federal government isn't the government that failed to provide clean water in this case; it's not even responsible for providing city water in the first place, city governments are.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights doesn't extend any powers granted by the Constitution to the Federal government, to state, county, city, etc. governments. It just says those governments (well, the State governments, since the Amendment only explicitly says "States", but other local governments when they are implementing or enforcing State statutes) also have to respect the Bill of Rights when they exercise the powers they already had. The Constitution did not establish those other governments. They were already there.
The Bill of Rights is just the first ten. Incorporation has been extended far further than that. Per the link:
"However, the post–Civil War era, beginning in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment, which declared the abolition of slavery, gave rise to the incorporation of other amendments, applying more rights to the states and people over time."
> The Constitution did not establish those other governments.
But it does constrain them. They agreed to that when they ratified the Constitution and joined the United States.
> The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly constrains states
It says states can't make laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens. It does not say states have to provide whatever services citizens would like to have.
If a city chooses to operate a water system, that’s still subject to the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment constrains state and local government action. And the Preamble's "general Welfare" is relevant interpretive context. At the Founding, that meant the safety, prosperity, happiness, and well being of the political community.
So the question isn't whether the Constitution requires cities to provide water, but whether a city that allegedly poisons people through the water system it operates can violate constitutionally protected interests in life, liberty, or bodily integrity.
The city is not a State. The Fourteenth Amendment says that States shall not abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens.
As the court's opinion points out (and as others have pointed out in this thread), there are plenty of other legal remedies that can be sought against a city government that allegedly poisons its people through its water system, including voting them out of office and bringing tort claims against them.
A city is a state actor for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. The Supreme Court has applied the Fourteenth Amendment to municipal action since at least Yick Wo, and municipalities can be sued under §1983 for constitutional violations caused by official policy.
And "you can vote them out or sue in tort" doesn't answer the constitutional question. The availability of other remedies does not make an otherwise unconstitutional government action constitutional.
Also, the Fourteenth Amendment does considerably more than prohibit abridging privileges or immunities. It expressly prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process and from denying equal protection.
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
One might argue they're not required to provide water, but I'd argue this means they can't knowingly provide dangerous water laced with a neurotoxin and lie about its safety as in this case.
(And there's an "equal protection of the laws" aspect to "lead in the water supply tends to disproportionately occur in poor communities", too.)
The city is not a State, so that clause would not apply to it. Unless you want to argue that the State of Mississippi was violating the Fourteenth Amendment by not requiring its cities to provide clean water (the article mentions that a few other states have done this). But this suit wasn't against the state.
This is tortured logic that would argue the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to most police departments in the country and that town school boards could violate the First Amendment and have religious instruction.
States are co-sovereigns with the Feds. Your city is not. Your city's state cannot allow the local jurisdictions under it violate the Constitution either. Your town can't forbid black people from voting for mayor. etc. etc. etc.
> Held: Local units with general governmental powers over an entire geographic area may not, consistently with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, be apportioned among single member districts of substantially unequal population.
> The Equal Protection Clause reaches the exercise of state power, whether exercised by the State or a political subdivision.
Give how vague constitutional clauses have been (ab)used to sneak in legislation through the judicial system (eg. roe v wade, or louisiana v. callais), the last thing we need are even more avenues to sue the government just because the plaintiff doesn't think the government is acting in the way they think is best.
The Preamble isn't vague about what it's doing, though. It's quite clear. It tells us who is establishing the Constitution and expressly states the purposes for which they are establishing it.
Saying that those stated purposes should inform constitutional interpretation isn't a particularly novel idea. Pretending the ratified language at the beginning of the Constitution doesn't matter because taking it seriously might be inconvenient isn't a serious position either.
The possibility that judges can abuse constitutional interpretation is an argument for doing it carefully, not selectively. Or, as Joseph Story put it: "The circumstance, that so construed the power may be abused, is no answer. All powers may be abused."
>The possibility that judges can abuse constitutional interpretation is an argument for doing it carefully, not selectively. Or, as Joseph Story put it: "The circumstance, that so construed the power may be abused, is no answer. All powers may be abused."
You realize much of the constitution is designed to constrain what the government can do, exactly to limit the potential for abuse? Sure, it's all great when you're using the "promote the general welfare" as an excuse to enact medicare for all or whatever, not so great when the other side decides it means abortion needs to be banned (what about the "welfare" of babies).
Can’t say that I follow. What does a king have to do with forming a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity?
If you allow justifying government power according to some ambiguous notion of general welfare, then all you need to say is that something promotes general welfare. There is more to the structure of the US system than the preamble to the constitution.
You're conflating purpose with power. "Promote the general Welfare" doesn't create unlimited power. The power comes from the Constitution. The point is that once you are interpreting those powers, the Constitution's stated purposes are relevant to what they mean and how broadly they should be understood.
Nor was "general Welfare" some contentless phrase at the Founding. Protection, safety, prosperity, happiness, and the well being of the political community were all part of the contemporary vocabulary surrounding the public good. As Madison wrote in Federalist 45, “the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people is the supreme object to be pursued”.
All government powers carry some risk of abuse. But, as Joseph Story put it, “Neither rulers, nor any other functionaries, much less any private persons, have a right to cripple it, because it is according to their own views inconvenient, or dangerous, unwise or impolitic, of narrow limits, or of wide influence.”
Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you meant in your original comment? "This seems to fall under the whole “promote the general welfare” part of the Preamble of the Constitution, though perhaps the court is unaware of it."
The OP is about a federal ruling saying clean water is not a constitutional right, no? And if you're disagreeing you're saying it should be a positive federal right in interpretation if not declaration, implying power of enforcement.
The speed of the surge + people feeling strongly enough about it that they destroy the cameras + events like the grand jury that refused the indictment. I usually just see this kind of vitriol remain online. That it’s crossed into the real world like this is interesting to see.
Because Flock is the first company to so brazenly violate the post-2011 social contract: if you're going to track somebody you need to give them coupons and content as compensation. They have failed to provide the people whose privacy they are violating with internet drama and buttcheeks videos. Other companies with many times greater reach and market cap collect GPS, cell tower, and 802.11 ESSID data to observe their users' movements; they track them across web sites and apps without explicit consent to serve personalized advertisements and adjust prices for durable goods and services depending upon user behavior. They do this with impunity because people enjoy short-form videos and image macros and will readily trade their privacy for easy access to them. Flock has nothing to offer in this regard. This is why they are shunned whereas other companies that understand how this game is played are forgiven for equivalent or worse sins.
I agree with the post, despite the sarcasm. But the one thing it's missing is how Flock uses AI to pass user data directly to law enforcement without a warrant. At least (most?) of other companies that comply with the said social contract wait for the warrant.
The industry needs messengers that can put out a positive vision that also aren’t creepy or skeezy seeming dudes. I don’t think Zuck’s WSJ manifesto convinced anyone, plus he’s a terrible messenger.
Why should they worry about the people that are not going to give them money and likely wont ever be convinced to? They don't need to capture literally every person or whole industries to be successful.
And how has such distain for large parts of a population turned out in the past? Short term people sometimes get away with it, longer term and their society crashes when people start taking action. But it doesn't always take a long time if people are inflamed enough about an issue.
Because the negative externalities of GenAI are great enough that the majority will soon recognize them and demand action.
But I don't expect that to slow down any of the main drivers for now. Some have too much invested monetarily and emotionally, others have been caught up in the hype cycle.
Because these same people are being told if they don't use LLMs in their job they will be fired.
Truly think the political instincts of 90% of the people on this site is just straight up laughable. You don't get to turn the dial back after telling people for 3 years that they will lose their job, become homeless, and then die.
Tech leadership have been complaining about popular welfare programs for like 40 years.
These people have never been told no in their lives and don't understand how to navigate around the politics of rejection (thank fuck, it would require them doing actual organizing; something money can't buy).
Beautifully said, and that is exactly why the tech billionaires need to be stopped. They disregard everyone but themselves while also having the power and money to do whatever they want.
A nice sentiment, though I think perception of a thing ends up being more important than the specifics. No doubt the actions can be used to support the marketing vision, though.
The problem is that perception can only carry things so far. Surveillance Valley had been coasting on unjustifiable positive perceptions while continuing to build their digital cages. The jig is up, and it's a long way down.
Non creepy people were rejected by billionaires class, they just dont fit in. And conversely, non creepy people also avoid the tech bro creepy singularity is here crowd.
That wasn't a mental image, that was oversaturated photoreceptors in your eyes still sending an updating status of what they are detecting to your brain and your brain still processing it.
It wasn't any more of a mental image than the color "olo" is.
But yeah, when I close my eyes and imagine an apple, it hangs out in the black void all bright red like that.
That's so bizarre to me. I can "picture" an apple, but I'm not literally seeing something resembling an apple in my mind. It's closer to the classic object-oriented example of "Apple isa Fruit", except not in text but in vague geometric shapes that to me say "appleness".
I can mentally see and feel the little fuzzies around the top where the stem is. I can mentally fidget with the bottom where the flower was.
I can make it a granny smith, a pink lady, a Gala, a Cosmic Crisp and the shape and color striations change. I can see the tiny little pore circles when it's a green or yellow apple. I can conjure and catch my fingernail on a worm hole in the apple.
If I think about a wild green apple from apple trees I know about in Seattle, I can see myself standing there, seeing them both on the tree, and sitting on the ground rotting in several different states of decay and I can squish them and feel it crunching and squishing underfoot, with some parts just sinking into the soft spring soil at a tree on one side of town, or grinding into the gravel and asphalt on the other side of town. I could pinpoint these trees for you on a map.
I can put myself in the scene from Oppenheimer in the lab at Cambridge where he poisoned the apple in the movie, and I can pick up the apple and see the injection site. If I really try I can detect the faintest smell of almonds as I hold it up to my nose. I can do it as Bohr. I can grab the apple out of Bohr's hand as Oppenheimer and feel his adrenaline and the resistance of his confused hand as I do it. I can throw it against the wall instead, maybe shattering a glass window and hearing and seeing all of that, then cutting myself while cleaning it up and smelling and tasting the blood because I instinctively sucked on it.
Mind's eye is so much more than just visual, that the article and discussion of mental imagery in this thread is a bit flat.
Even the survey assumed that every aspect of someone's mind's eye is entirely visual, and it's just not the case.
Tell me to imagine a spinning cow. My experience is a lot like evaluating the mental version of:
class Cow:
spinning = True
What does a spinning cow look like to me? A lot like that program looks like as it's running (which I can visualize in a way; keep reading).
OK, so I don't know if other people actually visualize arithmetic or not. I don't think so, but I also wouldn't think that people literally imagined an apple, either, and yet here we are. But let's assume that people don't usually literally imagine pictures of the numbers in their mind when they add them.
Take 12. Add 7 do it. Now you have 19, right?
My mental imagery of adding 12 + 7 = 19 is nearly identical to that of picturing a spinning cow. Take a cow. Spin it. Now you have a spinning cow, right?
In both cases, those are just facts. Now, higher math does look like something to me, as does writing code. Those do have geometric shapes for me, kinds of blobby things with curved edges but not colors, except maybe rainbowy shimmers on those curves. I can feel the shapes moving and bending, and that moving and bending makes them makes sense to me. "OK, so I'm trying to do a binary search of this set... Alright, so if I push this shape into there... Oh! That'd work! Alright." But in no case do those shape-like things resemble anything I've ever seen in the real world.
My experience of mental math at the most common and basic is teasing apart the numbers into components and adding/multiplying/dividing their sums. Sometimes that's like the math confusion meme where it's "floating in front of my eyes" (mentally, internally) in the "void", sometimes I'm literally imagining in my minds eye doing the math at a desk on notebook paper with all the feedback that comes with it. Sometimes I use a mental TI-84/89 to do the math, or this one calculator I had when I was a kid. It's usually paper though. Many times I apply a synesthetic association to a number, be it textural, color, attitude, or "shape".
However, I also have the ability to mathematically evaluate an equation and graph it on a mental visualization of a graph. I've been able to do that in 2d and 3d for a range of quadratic, cubic, and quartic graphs since high school. Also asymptotes, hyperbolas, sinusoidal functions. You know those youtube videos where they do the CGI animations to show a rolling cylinder tracing out a sine wave? I've been able to do that in my mind since I was a teen.
In high school I would do calculus rate of change functions in my head with a visualization like a laser going from perpendicular to a wall to parallel with the wall, and how the speed of the point at the end of the beam on the wall approaches light speed as the beam approaches approaches parallel, or the shrinking surface area of a liquid in a vertical conical funnel.
The funnel i imagined is yellow with an equilateral cone and a long neck that tapers to a half inch and has a worn, wrinkled blue white and red sticker from being run through the dishwasher a few times. It's injection molded and not shaved/sanded. Excessive detail for a feature of a math problem, but it's there anyway.
For me a spinning cow can have horns or be a holstein heifer or an angus steer or a dairy calf, or a buffalo. Could be a chik fil a cow. Or the one from Barnyard...right, Barnyard? the Dreamworks movie...
I can go back and read pages of books and documents that I have already read in my mind, which means (with effort) I can retread any sheet music I've ever played, or redo the math that I did in calculus and chemistry and physics classes. For a long time it completely ruined re-reading books for me because I would know exactly what was coming and I didn't need to turn the page.
I used the sheet music thing to teach myself guitar based on what I learned on trumpet through recall of arpeggios and and scales. Notes are also synesthetic and I can make them dance off the page in my head.
reply